FlyNavyP3 ??? P3 vs P8

[CT8]

What are the differences between these two planes as far as cost per hour ,maintenance needed per hour. Any gripes about either air frame. just the in general common knowledge information as loose lips even sink airships.

I have seen the P8 often years ago when Moffet Field[Moffet field used to have the greatest airshows} was running and partied with some P3 pilots years ago ,pilots are fun! And I have seem the variations of the 737 over the years. That is all I know

 

[tig1]

I flew as a crew member in the P2V Neptune in the 60's. More accident prone than the P3, but still a cool ride.

 

[DeepFriar]

A straight 737 BBJ on long range missions (up to 6,000 miles) direct cost is about
$10-11 per MILE. That includes mission fuel and maintenance among others but does not include many, many other things. Crew training, mission equipment maintenance, hangar, updates, you name it, are not in that number. I have no way of knowing for sure but I would not be at all surprised if the P-8 is double that amount.

Source: Business & Commercial Aviation Magazine, 2016 Operations Planning Guide.I

Initial purchase price has been estimated at up to $275M each but that includes program development costs. I would hazard a guess that the recurring cost of each is probably $150M each without the R&D costs. Depreciation is NOT included in the op cost numbers. Fuel cost alone will exceed $5,000 per hour for short duration missions and maybe $4K plus for long duration.

Expensive but worth every dime in giving us the "edge". Intel is miles cheaper than having to build a force big enough to handle being "blind" and the losses that would be associated with that. Lots and lots cheaper than losing men, machines, your nation and your freedom because you didn't have good intel on where enemy subs are or the myriad other sensory outputs from that platform.

It could have been done cheaper with turboprops but that is somewhat offset by the need for more of those (crews are the ultimate expense and risk) and jets' ability to reach station more quickly. Those are arguable IMO but at least understandable. The weakness in buying fewer is the enemy ends up with less targets to destroy. But that's our world these days. Joeseph Stalin is quoted as having said, "Quantity has a quality all its own". We forget that to our peril.

 

[fdcg27]

The L-188 Electra based P3 isn't all that slow and the B737 based P8 isn't all that fast.
Granted, the old guys were and are reaching a point in years and hours where they need to be replaced, but the P8 program has been plagued with delays and cost overruns, which one would not have expected with a very mature commercial airframe.
The L-188 Electra was still in production only a little more than five years before the first B737 entered service, so the B737 was hardly a new airframe full of unknown unknowns and making a sub chaser is nothing new.
The B737 fleet has collectively probably flown more hours and cycles over the decades than has every other jet transport type combined, so the aircraft should have been the easy part of this development.

 

[DeepFriar]

I couldn't agree with you more. The integration of the mission package probably accounts for 95%+ of the cost and schedule problems. The airframe not so much. There are a few things that get us every time. Software development (making the individual systems work and integration of the various systems), SWaP-C (size, weight and power constraints plus cost), the forest of antennae that have to manage not to step on one another's signals), it all weighs down. After that there is the cost of proving it all works, sorting of the bugs, etc. etc. Now, after all that, make it all radiation hardened so that the whole system including the engines and flight control system doesn't simply quit at the first nuclear event (it is a warplane after all). I wish it was as easy as buying a 737 but it never will be. One question I still have about this one is - where is the MAD boom or have we got some new technology magnetic anomaly detector I don't know about?

 

[DeepFriar]

And there is also that little matter of making the 737 air refuelable and finding a way to not have all that interfere with a whole new interior configuration. The fun never stops...costing.

 

[FlyNavyP3]

I will have to be careful with my comments as I'm still active duty. To that end my comments expressed here are my own and in no way reflect any stance or position of the US Navy.

Personally, I prefer the P-3 for a multitude of reasons most of which I'm not comfortable discussing in an open forum regarding capabilities and limitations of the two airframes. However the P-8 is an amazing aircraft that has for the most part been fantastically reliable for us, the P-3 is showing her age, I've had more in flight fires than I care to count, more three engine landings than I care to count, but it always got me home safe thankfully, there are several who weren't so lucky.

Things I can say, old airplanes have a lot more "extra" built into them. Just a few years ago a P-3 departed controlled flight and was recovered below 100' with a 7.6g pullout as recorded by the SDRS (structural data recording system) a system installed to measure airframe stress to analyze airframe fatigue. Would a P-8 have saved that crew on that day with the same demands placed on it? Not a chance, it would have been an aluminum yard sale. The short field capabilities of the P-3 are vastly superior to the P-8, specifically landing rollout. The P-3 is less susceptible to FOD damage at remote fields and less well kept runways due to its high mounted engine intakes. The P-3 has a longer unrefueled flight time and flies slower and is more maneuverable on station while conducting anti-submarine warfare. The P-3 has a broader range and larger quantity of weapons stations compared to the P-8. The P-3 is a TRUE ALL WEATHER AIRCRAFT, I've flown in and through some absolutely terrible weather they would've either broken the P-8, forced us down with icing or flamed out the engines. Once over the North Pacific we had all four props slinging saint elmos fire, throwing ice chunks at the fuselage and being shaken so badly by turbulence that I couldn't read my logs or the majority of my tactical displays, once again the mighty Orion got me home safe.

After all of that, what does the P-8 offer? Comfort is king on long missions and the P-8 wins this by a landslide. After a 10 hour mission (or more) on a P-3 you're physically and mentally drained from all the noise and vibration. I walk off a P-8 after a 8-10 hour profile feeling great. The P-8 gets on station faster and flies higher giving us the ability to get above a good portion of the weather we had to flu under, around or through in the P-3. The P-8 system integration and battle space awareness absolutely trumps the P-3 in nearly every way. The P-8 has the capacity to carry more sonobuoys than the P-3 which are expendable for tracking submarines so more buoys is always better.

My personal opinion is that the P-8 is a force fit solution to our needs, it's doing the job and doing it well. However most of the P-3 long in the tooth issues would've also been fixed with a newer engine and prop control system on the mechanical side and would've equaled the P-8 on the software side in terms of situational awareness and capabilities. The plane we needed was the Lockheed P-7 that lost the bid to the Boeing P-8. It was basically a larger, faster, more modern P-3, with all the P-3 benefits and none of the P-8 shortcomings. Sadly it didn't win the bid. I'm always happy to answer questions about my experiences but if things get too technical or specific you'll have to understand I won't be able to comment or answer some of those questions. To that same end please refrain from speculating about capabilities in this open forum. If I can answer it I will, to the best of my ability.

One last time, the opinions I've expressed are my own and in no way reflect the opinion or stance of the US Navy or any government official. I'm purely posting my personal observations and opinions.

 

[FlyNavyP3]

Tig1,

I would have loved to have flown in a P2V, what a cool aircraft. Thank you for your service!

 

[FlyNavyP3]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The L-188 Electra based P3 isn't all that slow and the B737 based P8 isn't all that fast.
Granted, the old guys were and are reaching a point in years and hours where they need to be replaced, but the P8 program has been plagued with delays and cost overruns, which one would not have expected with a very mature commercial airframe.
The L-188 Electra was still in production only a little more than five years before the first B737 entered service, so the B737 was hardly a new airframe full of unknown unknowns and making a sub chaser is nothing new.
The B737 fleet has collectively probably flown more hours and cycles over the decades than has every other jet transport type combined, so the aircraft should have been the easy part of this development.


In terms of IAS limits the P-3 is actually faster, the limit of the P-3 was 405 KIAS, the P-8 is 340 KCAS.

 

[fdcg27]

So what if Boeing had pitched and the Navy had agreed to something based upon a far more capable narrow body, the 757?
What about something based on the kinda widebody 767?
Boeing had more capable airframes on which to base a sub chaser.
Did the Navy write the requirements in such a way that it was the 737 or nothing?
Also, WRT your comments about IAS for the 737 vs the L-188, at what altitudes?
The 737 should be capable of higher TAS than the Electra. The Electra was pretty fast for a turboprop but its straight constant chord wing should not be capable of as much speed as the swept, tapered wing gave the 737, admittedly a slower Boeing than either of its two predecessors, the 707 and the 727. The civil 720 doesn't count, since it was really no more than a 707 shrink.

 

[FlyNavyP3]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
So what if Boeing had pitched and the Navy had agreed to something based upon a far more capable narrow body, the 757?
What about something based on the kinda widebody 767?
Boeing had more capable airframes on which to base a sub chaser.
Did the Navy write the requirements in such a way that it was the 737 or nothing?
Also, WRT your comments about IAS for the 737 vs the L-188, at what altitudes?
The 737 should be capable of higher TAS than the Electra. The Electra was pretty fast for a turboprop but its straight constant chord wing should not be capable of as much speed as the swept, tapered wing gave the 737, admittedly a slower Boeing than either of its two predecessors, the 707 and the 727. The civil 720 doesn't count, since it was really no more than a 707 shrink.


No the requirements weren't tailored to either aircraft, I suspect that the Navy thought the 737 could be brought to market sooner and that ended up being the deciding factor between the two in the end. Those IAS are limits for all altitudes. Given the P-8's ability to fly higher it's TAS is higher, the P-8 max range cruise IS faster than the P-3. P-8A max IMN is 0.89, we never even spoke IMN in the P-3 lol.

As for larger airframes, we don't need them, the P-8 is PLENTY big for what we use it for and the 757/67 wouldn't improve slow speed maneuverability over what we have now in the P-8.

 

[zuluplus30]

On a side note, why no APB blended winglet? The industry has embraced them. 3% increase in efficiency/range. I assume the P-8's assignments keep it aloft for long durations, so I'm guessing the deletion has something to do with EW?

 

[FlyNavyP3]

Originally Posted By: zuluplus30
On a side note, why no APB blended winglet? The industry has embraced them. 3% increase in efficiency/range. I assume the P-8's assignments keep it aloft for long durations, so I'm guessing the deletion has something to do with EW?


The winglet was not used because they're difficult to de-ice, the aircraft instead uses a raked profile on the outboard 4' of the wing to get close to the same benefit without the icing concerns. Radar cross section has no bearing on it as the aircraft is already huge with no attempt for RCS reduction.

Also at the low altitudes we operate at for the majority of our mission tracking submarines I'm not sure how much benefit there would've been.

Hopefully that answers your question.

 

[DeepFriar]

It certainly seems that the Russians and Chinese find the P8 more "interesting" than the P3. More "unprofessional" intercepts in the news these days. A function of current tensions as well I suppose but they're probably also feeling out the sensitivity of our crews of a new, more expensive aircraft to unsafe intercept operations, i.e., what's it take to scare the P8 off? Hopefully that will settle down over time before either a tragedy occurs or we start flying MIGcap in those places where it's even possible. Of course, part of the mission is actually causing response! Unarmed and unafraid is worthy of extreme respect.

 

[Astro14]

Well...let's be honest. They've had a P-3 to examine up close. No mystery there.

The P-8 is new, and less known, so they're going to have greater interest.

The "unprofessional" intercepts are a different matter. As China wishes to show its strength, just like Russia in the Black Sea, you'll see aggressive actions from their pilots. That's directed from higher up and is part of a strategic set of communication goals...

 

[FlyNavyP3]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Well...let's be honest. They've had a P-3 to examine up close. No mystery there.

The P-8 is new, and less known, so they're going to have greater interest.

The "unprofessional" intercepts are a different matter. As China wishes to show its strength, just like Russia in the Black Sea, you'll see aggressive actions from their pilots. That's directed from higher up and is part of a strategic set of communication goals...


I couldn't have said it better myself Astro. I was on the first tactical mission of the P-8 back in 2013 as a turn over flight with the squadron who was relieving us on deployment. It wasn't a mystery that the P-8 was coming to theater with social media press releases plane spotting etc, that first mission and many that followed it got plenty of "attention".

 

[53' Stude]

To TIG1 and FlyNavyP3 and Astro14: from one fellow navy man to you guys thanks for your service.

Flynavyp3: my stepdad dearly misses his 6years as pilot of the P-3 "ORION" also

 

[FlyNavyP3]

Originally Posted By: car51
To TIG1 and FlyNavyP3 and Astro14: from one fellow navy man to you guys thanks for your service.

Flynavyp3: my stepdad dearly misses his 6years as pilot of the P-3 "ORION" also


I'm trying to get back to one for my next tour, it would be my last chance to fly one in the Navy. There will be other opportunities to fly them with Customs or NOAA beyond that but the Navy fleet will completely sun down around the 2020-2022 timeframe.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: car51
To TIG1 and FlyNavyP3 and Astro14: from one fellow navy man to you guys thanks for your service.

Flynavyp3: my stepdad dearly misses his 6years as pilot of the P-3 "ORION" also


Thank YOU, Sir!

 

[53' Stude]

Originally Posted By: FlyNavyP3
Originally Posted By: car51
To TIG1 and FlyNavyP3 and Astro14: from one fellow navy man to you guys thanks for your service.

Flynavyp3: my stepdad dearly misses his 6years as pilot of the P-3 "ORION" also


I'm trying to get back to one for my next tour, it would be my last chance to fly one in the Navy. There will be other opportunities to fly them with Customs or NOAA beyond that but the Navy fleet will completely sun down around the 2020-2022 timeframe.


Yeah, those NOAA guys have balls flying a P-3 into a hurricane like I watched a while ago